Published on May 30, 2013
"The father of a Chechen man shot dead while being interviewed by the FBI in Florida last week over his connection to one of the Boston bombing suspects has accused US agents of killing his son "execution-style".*

Boston Bomber's Friend - 'Executed' By FBI?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJjvWPamyQU
Ibragim Todashev, who was being questioned for his friendship with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed by FBI agents after lunging at them with a knife-- but is that really what happened? Conflicting stories are coming out now, throwing that story into question. How and why was Todashev killed?

24 Comments

The father is in Moscow, the son was shot in Orlando. He has a father's love to blind him, what makes his thoughts and feelings about possible execution credible?

Stories are always conflicting at first. Look at the errors made in the first hours of the Boston bombing or the Sandy Hook shooting. Reporters go with hearsay to be first end up reporting rumor and when the truth gets sorted out some people think conspiracy.

Four men from three different agencies have to agree on murder and coverup. You'll need to find a good motive and bring more evidence then the father's feelings.

I did, the actual photo wasn't quite what the words "the back of the head" initially conjure in my head. Stop the video and look at the exact location of the head wound. Back of the head gives me a mental picture of dead center from behind, this wasn't.

Could the first shots have turned and spun a body? I don't know how real bullets from a gun hit, push, or spin a real body. I don't know what kind of gun was used, what it does on impact, or even what standard training is for agents. Are they expected to fire one shot then wait and see what it did, or trained to fire multiple shots when threatened?

Every shooting needs to be reviewed, but I'm not going to take a distraught father's word or an unnamed "friend", neither of whom were there, any more then I'm going to just accept the word of the agent that did the shooting. I'll wait for an investigation and the forensic report. The forensics can't lie or give emotional distortions of events.

The video states, "press reports are sited..." That's my point, the reporters print statements from "unnamed sources" that were not present and could easily have filled in blanks in their own knowledge with guesses. I'll let the investigation take place before I jump to conclusions. Uygur is doing the same thing, he has conflicting statements from people that weren't present. He's takes unprovable hearsay and paints a sort of conspiracy picture for us.

Cynics do not achieve great things so "Trust AND Verify" the F.B.I. because all F.B.I. people took an oath so we should all take that at face value to begin with. Where there is a possibility of an F.B.I. misdeed in judicial enforcement, an independent investigation is warranted as it is in this case.

i am not a cynic i am a realist and the reality is the fbi is out of control. our whole government is out of control and they are enabling capitalists to run out of control. there is zero accountability. zero. so you must be a complete moron to trust the government or the fbi. an oath lol a fucking oath. ha ha ha ha really an oath. ahhhh a fucking oath.

I agree with your "our whole government is out of control and they are enabling capitalists to run out of control" but I do not believe that the F.B.I. is entirely out of control.

The F.B.I. definitely erred before (chipping away at the U.S. Constitution) and will err again in the future but it does have a mission to carry out in difficult circumstances so we just have to count on the goodness of the people in the F.B.I. and hope that arm-twisting by J. Edgar Hoover on Kennedy's sexual liaisons or Mark Felt's leaks on Nixon would come at the opportune moments.

do you have any idea of the depth of endemic corruption at the fbi? it infiltrates all levels and has since it's inception. you can't root out corruption and law breaking from an organization founded on corruption and law breaking. so fuck you no we don't have to just rely on the goodness of the people at the fbi are you insane it is an institution and institutions will do anything to preserve their own and save themselves first and foremost.

Without the people watching over the F.B.I., we just have to count on the goodness of its people and their earnest adherence to their oaths. Of course, in our system of checks and balances, there are many other ways to control the F.B.I. some rather unpleasant.

Like a dog that may stray at times, we, as its true owners, can train it properly to do our bidding or let it be euthanized. As long as it is still not quite a wolf, we can still take a chance to train it.

We're under no obligation to take the FBI at face value based on the "goodness of its people and their earnest adherence to their oaths". Our only obligation is to strive to attain the truth.

They've shown their criminal nature over and over again -- the blackmailing of MLK, the murder of Fred Hampton, the murder by suicide of Jean Hampton, etc. They even provided the explosives in the 1993 WTC bombing -- even their informant objected, luckily he made sure to wear their provided wire when talking with his FBI handlers. THIS IS ALL PART OF THE COURT RECORD.

I know very well the limitations of the U.S. justice system. It does NOT strive to attain the Truth. It DOES strive to attain simulated justice which can and often does approximate the Truth (due to the adherence to the codified process and using the experience and judgment of the disinterested third parties).

It cannot dispense Infinite Justice as that will certainly be blasphemous to Muslims in addition to its actually being unattainable. It does dispense, for certain severe cases (such as that of Aafia Siddiqui), highly scrubbed common-man justice founded on due process, limitations on what evidence and how it can be obtained and presented in court, the qualifications of jurors as disinterested third parties without (hopefully) any conflict of interest and (somewhat) selected by the attorneys, court-appointed attorney(s) for representation if need be, and a judge supervising the entire judicial process as an umpire and exercising judicial judgment in the final sentencing.

Aafia Siddiqui's trial may be argued as being unfair because of its proximity to the 9/11 site but I do not really think that there exists a group of potential jurors anywhere in the U.S. who has not heard of the events of 9/11/2001 and become emotional by them. As long as the case's being tried under U.S. jurisdiction, there was, is, and will be this 9/11 fact to some and bias to others. As for where the good people in the F.B.I. are in this case, you may be able to find them if one barks up the tree in the verdict appeal process. There is always another group of people in another layer of the judicial review process until there is no more after the U.S. Supreme Court. There are also law school activists who champion the exoneration of the guilty verdicts on the innocents.

Anything is possible, and there are examples of victims lying, the accused lying, the friends or family of victim or accused lying, law officers lying. What should we do then? Riot every time someone is shot and killed by the authorities? Should we disbelieve everyone and go with our prejudices and just react emotionally on the bits of information and hearsay that we like?

I think we demand an investigation and then wait until it's completed. There will always be an opportunity in the future for conspiracy theories or demonstrations or to challenge the investigation. I just think it would be better to have as many real facts as possible to base actions on.

but who does the investigation? the fbi? you can see the opportunity for corruption to flourish can you not? i hate to break it to you but these guys they are not your friends, they are not here to protect you.

Most city and state departments have separate internal affairs devisions, I believe the FBI has something like that also.

Agreed no one in law enforcement is my friend, in either a literal of figurative way. But i"m not willing to accuse and convict anyone of a crime without having all the facts. One man is dead, I want a full investigation completed before I convict another man.

What's the alternative to getting the results to an investigation, then evaluating those results and its source? Is deciding the issue based on emotion, fear, and bias going to somehow be better for society?

The FBI agent should be arrested for murder. But we are no longer a nation of laws. The father should come here and file wrongful death civil charges against the FBI and the agent (who's name has not bee revealed -- how is this legal?).